Copyright Notice

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, at the address below.

Sakmongkol ak 47

ariff.sabri@gmail.com

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Since the chief of the arm forces spoke on a political issue, I feel obliged to write something about this. Two bloggers have also written on this new development. I have written about this in my earlier blog( see the 3rd way- no thank you).

It is highly irregular for a sitting general to speak about politics. The traditional role of the army is apolitical.

But I am sure, in keeping with the characteristic wanton abandon of the PakLah-Najib leadership, this statement will not be broached. It may even increase public’s anxiety which can be exploited by the sitting government.

Creating a military toned government is a double edged sword. It can be used by the ruling elite to maintain their political power. Once installed, the military led government is more effective hurdle to democracy. It will involve concessions given to the military the refusal of which can even lead to outright military coup d’état.

I chance upon a short speech by Lee Kuan Yew who said something along these lines. From the moment the commander has pressed the button, control of events goes over to local commanders until the battle was over. During the battle, it is the captain, the lieutenant, the sergeant, the corporal, the lance corporal and private, who makes the decisions. Now, that is a sobering thought indeed.

Those who venture to think that military rule is good need only to study the fate that have befallen countries that have embraced military rule. Invariably these have turned into dictatorships and the military establishments becomes the oppressor.

In a society like ours, the means of organised and structured violence are in the monopoly of the military. If the ruling elite allowsa strong military activism, they have to live with the political hazard that this choice causes. The military can be an agent serving the elite’s interest or can be the enemy they slept with. Then the ruling elite must be conscious of the costs involved such as the need to pay efficiency wages to soldiers and make other social and policy concessions. To avoid coups.

But beyond just exploring the notion of the usefulness of using the military as bulwark to democracy or to life as they know it, the current political leadership has exposed its truer darkener side. That deep down, they actually have oligarchic tendencies. They are more interested in preserving their interests than seeing civil democracy at work.